Archive for October, 2010

Newer Entries »

Geert Wilders’ TRIAL halted as Judge accused of BIAS

October 4, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Comment at end

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    4th October, 2010

    Reported at The Guardian – note the “far-right”.  He isn’t; he is more like a right-leaning British Liberal Democrat, or perhaps one of today’s left-leaning Conservatives.

    It looks like the British papers and political classes won’t be able to ignore or dismiss Mr Wilders any more as has been their wont hitherto. This disgraceful trial of a leading politician, a man whose party has recently attracted around 20% of the vote, which is now the third party in Holland and is about to hold the balance of power, would be the equivalent of seeing Nick Clegg in the dock.

    Of course this is never likely to happen to Mr Clegg, as he and his party see no issues with creeping Islamification of our country or of any western countries. And what of his partners in coalition – the Conservatives? Or the official opposition Ed Miliband’s Labour party? Answer came there none. For all three main British political parties there is no problem here. Is it any wonder many of us feel completely disenfranchised?

    Geert Wilders trial halted as lawyer accuses judge of bias

    While Islamist fundamentalists KILL, threaten democracy and attack freedom, Geert Wilders sits in a court in freedom-loving Amsterdam accused of "hate speech" against these fundamentalists !!!!!

    The reason the trial was suspended? Mr Wilders decided to exercise his legal right to remain silent. The presiding judge remarked to the effect, “you don’t always remain silent outside of this court.” (paraphrased. The exchange is NOT reported in full, interestingly, at The Guardian). To this from the judge Geert Wilders’ counsel responded that the judge was betraying his own bias. He demanded new judges.

    Guardian excerpt follows. Note the use of the phrase “Islam-baiters”. Would that be similar to “Blair-Baiters”?

    Oh no, of course not.

    Baiting a sentient being is quite acceptable; baiting a religion is clearly a big “No-No”:

    “Dutch far-right leader’s advocate challenges presiding judge’s comment on opening day of Wilders’ trial for inciting racial hatred

    Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom party and one of Europe’s leading Islam-baiters, went on trial today charged with hate speech and inciting racism, but the case was swiftly engulfed by uncertainty after a challenge over alleged judges’ bias.

    The opening of the trial, expected to last a month in Amsterdam, followed a successful weekend for the maverick Dutch politician, with his influence over a new rightwing government confirmed and a campaign speech in Germany aimed at establishing a trans-national European movement against Muslim immigration.

    Wilders entered the dock amid heavy security and promptly affirmed his commitment to free speech, dismissing the charges against him while not entering a plea.

    Also see Telegraph report. Excerpt:

    “I am on trial, but on trial with me is the freedom of expression of many Dutch citizens,” he said.

    Mr Wilders launched his political crusade against Islam after resigning from the centre-right VVD party in 2005 over its support for EU membership for Turkey.

    He then polarised the country by making the first European call for full Islamic dress to be banned. In 2005, he was given police protection after the exposure of an Islamist terrorist plot on his life.”

    His point proven? Sane minds might assume so. But are those who threaten his life also in court? Of course not. Such as these can threaten to kill and get away with it.  While such as Wilders can highlight their threats to kill and be up in court for doing so.

    PLEASE, lawmakers and lawyers – get a grip, before the public does. This can’t go on.

    FREEDOM ON TRIAL

    Wilders, pictured in court today, leads the third-largest party in the Dutch parliament.

    So why is a Dutch politician on trial? He hasn’t killed anyone, nor threatened to. He hasn’t physically attacked anyone, nor threatened to. He hasn’t encouraged  anyone else to attack or kill. He is on trial for HATE SPEECH!!

    “Hate speech” for highlighting some who have done all three aforementioned.

    What Geert Wilders has done is to describe a religion as he sees it – a danger to liberty in the Netherlands, Europe and the world.

    And today the 47 year-old member of parliament, whose trial opened in Amsterdam, faces imprisonment or a large fine.

    IT IS SHAMEFUL THAT IT HAS EVER GOT THIS FAR.

    Recent history leading up to Wilders’ trial today.

    On January 20th this year he first appeared in court. This is the only video I have been able to find right now. Apologies that it comes from a BNP YouTube site. The British National Party is a racist party. The huge majority of us are NOT racist.

    HIDDEN CAMERA AT GEERT WILDERS TRIAL!!! [English Subs]

    The above is an 8 minute excerpt of Wilders’ counsel arguing that this court on 20th January is invalid.

    blogspotKitmanTV | 03 March 2010

    Watch the complete 30 minute subtitled version here: http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2010/03/…
    And all the best Wilders Speeches here: http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/search/l…

    Thanks to the unnamed photographer and translator.
    Thanks to Hollandse Nieuwe for the full length upload at living scoop – http://www.livingscoop.com/watch.php?…

    __________

    More on the January/February 2010 court appearances here at UNDhimmi

    The crooked judges of Amsterdam (7:51)

    patcondell | 05 February 2010

    Europe’s cultural inquisition begins.

    Far-right Dutch deputy Geert Wilders, author o...Since the recent Dutch elections Wilders’ political support has grown and thus his profile has been raised exponentially. He supports Free Speech, and does not support the tide of Islam which he sees as sweeping through his country, all of Europe and the wider western world.For that he is on trial in his own land.

    Meanwhile those who follow the religion he criticises KILL and ATTACK people and encourage others to do both. Bin Laden has today claimed that the Europe terror plots are his.

    Makes you proud to support FREEDOM and freedom of speech, doesn’t it?

    An excellent article here by Abigail R. Esman -

    Democracy on Trial: Geert Wilders Goes To Court

    Image by AFP/Getty Images via @daylife

    It may well become the trial of the century: this week, Dutch MP Geert Wilders stands before the judge on charges of “sowing hate” through his speeches and writings about Islam.

    But it is not Geert Wilders who really is on trial here: it is, rather, that sacred principle of free speech on which democracy and the Enlightenment are born.

    This, of course, is what makes the Wilders case so ironic – and so tragic: in speaking out to defend the free democracy of the Netherlands from the incursion of oppressive, Islamist influences and attempts to exercise power, he has been silenced by the very government he is struggling to protect.

    Go figure.

    The trial has been repeatedly postponed since it first opened in Amsterdam last January, after an earlier high court ruling dismissing the charges was appealed in the lower Amsterdam courts.   For Wilders, however, its timing could not come at a more strategic moment. As the founder and leader of Holland’s far-right Freedom Party (PVV), Wilders is not only Holland’s most controversial politician, but also its most-favored, ranking higher in the polls now than it did after a sweeping victory in parliamentary elections this past June.  Moreover, just last week, after months of debate, the Dutch parliament finally settled on a new coalition government that will include support from the PVV under Wilders’ leadership.

    The lawsuit itself centers around Wilders’ statements comparing of the Koran to Mein Kampf , as well as other anti-Islam remarks he has made in recent years. Also at issue is his film, “Fitna,” which includes newsreel footage of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim extremists.  The charge – that he is inciting hate and has insulted Muslims – carries no small cost: if he loses, the 47-year-old Wilders could face a prison term of up to two years.

    Yet the whole case bespeaks, in fact, the very viability of Wilders’ accusations; for not since the founding of the Third Reich have the principles of our democracy been so at risk as they have been during the nine years since 9/11, challenged at every turn by followers of Salafism and other strains of fundamentalist Islam – and by the West’s efforts at responding to radical Islam within its borders.  Hence the threats against cartoonists who draw images of Mohammed; hence the censorship of television shows and theater productions; hence the brutal murder of filmmaker and commentator Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist on the streets of Amsterdam, not far from the courthouse where Geert Wilders is being tried.  Now, it is speech itself we stand to lose. It is our ideas that may be stifled and suppressed.

    And so it is not just Wilders whose future is as stake, but that of Western civilization, of the ideals which are our guiding light. Agree with Mr. Wilders’ views or not, one can only hope, then, that the judges whom he faces will uphold his right to speak them; and from the courthouse steps out onto the streets, across the canals of Amsterdam and beyond, that they will defy those who try to silence him, with the sound of freedom ringing.

    And the other day, in Denmark?

    Hizb ut-Tahrir: no such thing as a ‘Danish Muslim’

    Group says that Islamic faith should be identity enough

    Hizb Ut-Tahrir-Skandinavien holder den årlige konference i Bella Center i København søndag d.3.oktober 2010, hvor emnet var Muslimernes rolle i Vesten. Mænd og kvinder var adskilt. (Foto: Søren Bidstrup/Scanpix 2010)

    The conference featured separate men’s and women’s areas for attendees

    At its annual conference this weekend, Islamic group Hizb ut-Tahrir called on Muslims to be proud of their faith and not label themselves as Danish Muslims or French Muslims.

    During the conference, themed on the Muslims’ role in the West, the message to Muslims was that their faith should be their identity.

    At the conference, Jaweed Yusuf, a member of the group, explained that it was their duty to call others to Islam, however difficult that might be and whatever consequences it might entail.

    The group, which has been subject to controversy in Denmark, denied rumours that its members plan to run for parliamentary election, or that it supports the use violence to achieve its goals.

    RELATED

    • Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in 1. Tony Blair, Free Speech, Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, "Fitna" Video, Human Rights and HR Act, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Islam, Law - British Domestic & International, Multiculturalism, Nick Clegg Liberal Democrats, Press - Truth & Lies, Religion & Religious Issues in Politics, Sharia Law/Sharia Finance, Terrorism, The Independent - Daily Mail - Guardian - British "feral" Press | Leave a Comment »

    Why Ed M’s PM ambitions are all but impossible (Part 2). It took 33 years to find A BLAIR

    October 2, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    • Comment at end

    3rd October 2010

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    Part 1 here

    Ed Miliband’s task: Leading Labour to Number 10? All but impossible

    MORE (numbers) ON WHY IT IS ALL BUT IMPOSSIBLE –

    1) THE WILDERNESS – LABOUR’S DOMAIN. 2) FORGOTTEN LEADERS. 3) MIND THE GAP – CATCH 22, 19, 33

    But first, some electoral facts and figures (the below is taken from my third section ‘MIND THE GAP’) -

    • 1. Ramsay MacDonald (4th & 8th Labour leader) won in 1923 – was the first Labour Prime Minister but only in a coalition with the Conservatives. Then 22 years later -
    • 2. Clement Attlee (11th leader) 1945. Then 19 years later -
    • 3. Harold Wilson (14th leader) 1964. Then 33 years later -
    • 4. Tony Blair (20th leader) 1997 …????

    It is a simple, provable, historical fact – though largely ignored – that it took 33 long years for Labour to find itself an election-winning leader after Harold Wilson was first elected in 1964. The oft-quoted ’18 wilderness years’ are, in fact a red herring.  If this indisputable fact does not indicate something profound about British politics, leadership and the Labour party itself, I am talking to myself.

    Following on from here Part 1 perhaps I should clarify something.

    You may be wondering – surely the Labour party has had more than FOUR Labour Prime Ministers in its 100+ years existence? Well, yes, it has.

    TWO more, to be precise. All of two. Labour has only ever had SIX Prime Ministers, including two who stepped in mid-term, and were not elected as would-be waiting leaders. These were -

    James Callaghan, who took over from Harold Wilson when he resigned in 1976, and Gordon Brown, who took over from Labour’s greatest electoral success Tony Blair when he resigned in 2007. Both Callaghan and Brown served as prime ministers for only three years prior to being ejected by the electorate. (See chart here – SIX Labour Prime Ministers only. Ever.)

     

    James Callaghan, known as "Sunny Jim", exits 10 Downing Street after losing the 1979 general election, 4 May 1979. Credit: Getty Images

     

    1. THE POLITICAL WILDERNESS (aka 1979-1997)

    Labour’s exit under Callaghan, an unelected leader, made 1979 famously the start of their Wilderness Years – 18 years of  Conservative government. Blair broke this trajectory in 1997, with a landslide majority of 179 seats. But with Blair’s arrival in Downing Street it had been 33 years since a Labour leader had broken the Conservative grip to lead his party to victory.

    The idea has perpetuated that this 18 Wilderness Years period was unusual. In fact long periods out of office have been very much “usual” for Labour.

    And now, partly because they are historically illiterate, partly because they are fighting old battles over their party’s direction, and partly because they are stupid, many within Labour and perhaps even the country forget how earth-shatteringly unique Blair and his three election victories actually were.

    He is simply and unquestionably THE most successful leader Labour has ever had.

    Blair is the only leader to have won three consecutive elections. All of them provided overall majorities without the need for coalition with others. And Blair was the only Labour leader to win two landslides. He is also their longest-serving Prime Minister, serving 10 years compared to MacDonald’s and Attlee’s 6 years apiece, and Wilson’s 8 years.

    Having watched Tony Blair’s dominance of British politics since he became party leader in 1994 and immediately rid the Labour party of its historic Clause IV baggage many today, including many in the Labour party, have allowed themselves to be lulled into the belief that Labour is somehow the natural party of government. Nothing could be further from the truth.

     

    Gordon Brown, known as anything other than "sunny", leaves Downing Street in May this year, with his wife and young sons after the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had agreed to form a coalition.

     

     

    As if history repeats itself – as if – Gordon Brown, an unelected leader like Callaghan, was also to serve only three years before losing the May 2010 election. Whether or not Brown was leading his party back to the political wilderness in the above picture only time will tell. But the historical lessons make the prospects unpromising for Labour.

    Neither Callaghan nor Brown is remembered for anything spectacularly reforming in their short periods in power. Callaghan lost after the Winter of Discontent. Brown, though personally I am not entirely convinced, is often declared an incompetent Chancellor under Blair. How easily the decade of growing economic strength in Britain is forgotten. It is clearly fallacious to blame Brown for Britain’s present economic downturn starting as it did in the USA housing markets. The question of banking control is also, in my opinion, a debatable issue, since all the world’s major banks are so tied together. Brown could hardly have altered and regulated OUR British banks to an extent that would have saved US and yet not affected the rest. Especially when the City of London had grown since 1997 into such a world capital for banking.

    And, don’t forget that despite the economic turmoil, the Conservatives still failed to WIN outright in May this year. They are now in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, whose vote actually decreased in May 2010 c/w 2005.

    Brown’s failure of leadership when he DID finally lead his party into an election in May was more the failure of lacking the requisite skills, particularly in comparison to his ousted predecessor, Tony Blair. The political wilderness, was however, normally, Labour’s natural home from home.

    EARLY POLITICAL PARTIES’ BACKGROUND

    The history of the three main parties in Britain goes back many decades. It is widely accepted that Ramsay MacDonald’s 1924 election, which he lost for Labour, was nonetheless the beginning of the end for the Liberals (the precursors to today’s Liberal Democrats, and under a different name, like the Conservatives a far older party. But herein lies another more modern story.)

    Labour in the early 1920s was determined to destroy the Liberals and become the sole party of the left. Ramsay MacDonald was forced into a snap election in 1924, and although his government was defeated, he achieved his objective of virtually wiping the Liberals out as many more radical voters now moved to Labour whilst moderate middle-class Liberal voters concerned about socialism moved to the Conservatives. The Liberals were reduced to a mere forty seats in Parliament, only seven of which had been won against candidates from both parties and none of these formed a coherent area of Liberal survival. The party seemed finished and during this period some Liberals, such as Churchill, went over to the Conservatives, while others went over to Labour. (Several Labour ministers of later generations, such as Michael Foot and Tony Benn, were the sons of Liberal MPs.) [See Liberal Decline, Wikipedia]

    __________

    2. FORGOTTEN LABOUR LEADERS

    WINNING LABOUR LEADERS ARE NOT THE NORM – FAR FROM IT

    If I mentioned these names, would they ring any bells with you?

    George Nicoll Barnes … John Robert Clynes … William Adamson … No? Here’s a clue – they have something in common with Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock. You MUST remember these two? Yes, all five were leaders of the Labour party. Mainly successful within their party, after a fashion, but never, any of them, prime ministers.

    Of course it is true that there have been reasons why Labour has failed  so frequently to achieve power. There have been “events” on a major international scale where the voters have, in the past, felt more comfortable with the Conservatives. And, possibly above all there was Labour’s perpetual problem  – internal party differences over its roots, it class-based place in the world and its raison d’être.

    And so here we are again.

    One issue they never had to cope with in recent decades was a real challenge from the third party – the  Liberals/Liberal Democrats. Until the last election when the Liberal Democrats shared an equal televised platform with the two largest parties, they were invariably in third place with voting percentages under 20%, even under 10%.

    Now the Liberal Democrats, despite polling lower than in 2005, share coalition government with the Tories and their leader is the Deputy Prime Minister. Another mistake Blair would never have made.

    __________

    3. MIND THE GAP

    But for me the main interesting historical fact is how long after being removed from office, Labour had to wait before A NEW LEADER returned them to power.

    We all know about Labour’s 18 YEARS IN the political wilderness (1979 – 1997). But do we understand that prior to Thatcher’s 1979 win the previous Labour leader to win power was Harold Wilson, in March 1964? At 10 years old, Tony Blair would soon be worried about his sick father. Little would he have thought that 33 years later HE would be the NEXT Labour PM to become prime minister as prime minister-elect, prime-minister-in-waiting of that party. The Labour party was not elected to office during Wilson’s/Callaghan’s time or Blair’s/Brown’s time with Callaghan or Brown as expected PMs, as far as the electorate was concerned.

    Even if we bend this rule and calculate the time-lapse from Wilson’s return to office in 1974, that is still 23 years before another Labour leader was to lead his party to victory (Tony Blair in 1997.)

    CATCH 22 YEARS – 19 YEARS – 33 YEARS?

    The first emboldened year mentioned in each reference below is the first year of each Labour leader winning; second emboldened number is the time between that aforementioned year and the next Labour leader’s win:

    • 1. Ramsay MacDonald (4th & 8th Labour leader) won in 1923 – was the first Labour Prime Minister but only in a coalition with the Conservatives. Then 22 years later -
    • 2. Clement Attlee (11th leader) 1945. Then 19 years later -
    • 3. Harold Wilson (14th leader) 1964. Then 33 years later, or 23 if taken from Wilson’s interrupted return in 1974 -
    • 4. Tony Blair (20th leader) 1997 …????

    If we average these gaps of 22 + 19 + 23 we get a gap averaging over 21 years, or 24 and a half (if taken from Wilson’s first term in 1964.)

    As I mentioned in a previous post here – “Another striking aspect of the length of time Labour leaders have served is how short most of them were. With Clement Attlee way out ahead at 20 years , only Blair and Wilson served 10 years or more (both served 13). Excluding those three and the three temporary leaders of 1963, 1994 and 2010, the average time served as leaders was 5.3 years.”

    Yet somehow, Tony Blair’s dominance and impact on the British political scene has lulled Labour people into believing that THEY are the natural party of government. AND that they, with a less than brilliant leader can command Number 10 next time round.

    It’s laughable nonsense.

    Tony Blair was… still is, a political genius and one of a kind.

    The idea that somehow HE was the problem and not the answer is derisory to anyone who professes to take any interest whatsoever in politics. We have almost forgotten there was another PM after him so dominating was Blair’s influence and electoral POWER, potency and influence.

    And another thing -

    THREE OUT OF FOUR PREVIOUS LABOUR PMs WERE DEFEATED AT ELECTIONS

    • MacDonald, already ill and incoherent was defeated at the 1935 general election; he was returned in a by-election the next year but was finally defeated by ill-health and died a broken man in 1937, hated and all but exiled by the party he had led into power.
    • Attlee was defeated in the 1951 general election by Winston Churchill’s Conservatives – Attlee continued to lead the party in opposition. His last four years as leader are widely seen as one of the Labour Party’s weaker periods.[10] The party became split between its right wing led by Hugh Gaitskell and its left led by Aneurin Bevan.  Attlee, now aged 72, contested the 1955 general election against Anthony Eden, which saw the Conservative majority increase. He stood down as Leader of the Opposition in November 1955, and retired as leader of the Labour party on 14 December 1955, having led the party for over twenty years, and was succeeded by Hugh Gaitskell.[4]
    • Wilson, although his party lost one of the elections he stood for in 1970 to Heath’s Conservatives, won power back from Heath in 1974. His departure two years later when he handed over to James Callaghan was a surprise and his own choice. Callaghan, back to where we were, was an unelected leader who lost in 1979 to Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives.
    • Tony Blair, as prime minister, and in contrast to all three above – MacDonald, Attlee and Wilson – was never rejected or ejected by the electorate, only by elements within his own historically dumb and electorally immature party.

    My point in this post and the previous one is to show that despite Labour having had 22 leaders up to and including Gordon Brown, seldom had a Labour party leader actually LED his party to victory. And NEVER had one of these leaders/prime ministers remained electorally undefeated. NEVER …

    UNTIL TONY BLAIR

    I rest my case.

    HOW MANY LABOUR PRIME MINISTERS HAS BRITAIN HAD?

     

    SIX IN TOTAL

    Labour Prime Ministers

    Name↓ Portrait↓ Country of birth↓ Periods in Office↓
    Ramsay MacDonald Ramsay MacDonald ggbain.29588.jpg Scotland 1924; 1929-1931
    Clement Attlee Attlee BW cropped.jpg England 1945–1950; 1950-1951
    Harold Wilson Dodwilson.JPG England 1964-1966; 1966-1970; 1974; 1974-1976
    James Callaghan James Callaghan.JPG England 1976-1979
    Tony Blair TonyBlairBasra.JPG Scotland 1997-2001; 2001-2005; 2005-2007
    Gordon Brown GordonBrown1234 cropped .jpg Scotland 2007-2010

    Back to top

    List of UK Prime Ministers, from 1714

    RELATED

     

    An intriguing thought here below, which I may develop at a later post. If however I find that there are still only 24 hours in a day, and other matters take priority I may not get round to it. So, read this at The Standpoint

    “Blair’s journey, as he calls it, is not over yet. He is still youngish, vigorous, healthy, unbroken in spirit, and optimistic. He has not made the mistake of imprisoning himself in that whited sepulchre the House of Lords, or that eunuch’s harem the Brussels bureaucracy. The British political system is moving into uncharted waters. If, as I suspect, both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party will shortly split, Blair would be well placed to unite and lead the responsible rumps of both. Stranger things have happened. In an age of coalitions, Blair is by far the best equipped to be a natural, instinctive and happy coalition leader, unburdened by convictions and enemies. He is a valuable national asset and I for one hope the country finds further use for him.”

    Fanciful? Perhaps. Then again.

    _______________

    [Missed Part 1 on Ed M's impossible task? - It's here]

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the priviledge of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

    AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

    AND – “I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”


    Free Hit Counter

     

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in 1. Tony Blair, 1994 - 1997 (Labour Party) In Opposition, A Journey Memoirs, Blair - "Values" - Ideology, British Conservative Party, British Politics, British Prime Minister, Brown (Gordon Brown & his Labour Government, from June 2007), Labour Party under Tony Blair's leadership, Legacy of Tony Blair, Major Political Issues, Britain & World | 1 Comment »

    Michael Gove’s fond Journey back to Blairism, if he ever left in the first place

    October 2, 2010
  • Original Home Page – And another very early post from this blog
  • Current Latest Page
  • All Contents of Site – Index
  • Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    • Comment at end

    2nd October 2010

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    I rather like Michael Gove, the Education Minister. I would, wouldn’t I?

    It’s seldom you come across any politician who, when talking about a politician from a different party, never uses the sceptical “ah, but” when expressing admiration. Refreshing.

    Michael Gove, education minister, reading Tony Blair's A Journey Photograph: Martin Godwin/guardian

    It is not that Gove never takes a swipe at the opposition. He does. At such as Ed Balls and the Old Labour tribalists who instinctively went, teeth bared and sharpened for the throat of their most successful leader ever whenever it sensed an open target.

    And he swipes, gently, with an “ah, but” on Ed Miliband. Personally I think that “choosing” Ed M was the biggest mistake that party has made since the two earlier mistakes – crowning Gordon Brown unopposed and getting rid of Tony Blair, in whichever order you prefer.

    But for Tony Blair Mr Gove’s love affair continues unabated.

    Well done that man for sticking by The Man. Your instincts are good, as, btw, is ‘A Journey’.

    Excerpts, Guardian – Gove on A Journey, education reforms, Ed Balls, Ed Miliband.

    ‘Michael Gove jumps out of his armchair, rushes over to his desk and lovingly picks up a copy of a well-thumbed tome that has pride of place in his office at the education department, overlooking Westminster Abbey.

    “I love A Journey, I have never read a book like it,” the education secretary says of Tony Blair’s bestselling memoirs. Gove opens it at his favourite page to read out, in a slow and admiring tone, Blair’s conclusion that opposition to public service reform can be beaten.

    “There you are,” he says with a broad smile. “One of the other lessons of A Journey – there are many lessons in it – is don’t hang around.”

    Gove’s mild crush on Blair shows he is a member of a small circle at the top of the Conservative party which believes the former Labour prime minister set in train historic reforms to public services. These were stymied by Gordon Brown, say the Tory Blair fan club, leaving it to the coalition government to complete the process of freeing schools and hospitals.

    A member of the Conservative elite that advised David Cameron on his path to No 10, Gove was given the task of finishing the Blair revolution in education. Legislation was rushed through before the summer recess to make it easier for schools to apply for academy status and to create a new generation of “free” schools run by parents and voluntary groups. Gove is now seeking solace in the thoughts of Blair to answer criticism that he has been thrown off course by the bumpy pace of schools reform.

    [...]

    “If you are first out of the trap, then anti-reform forces think ‘Here we are,’” Gove says. “Some of the people who have been most encouraging, and there are many silent supporters, are Labour politicians who have said ‘Crack on.’”

    Gove will use the Conservative conference in Birmingham next week to show that, having rushed academies legislation on to the statute book at breakneck speed, he is pressing ahead with the next stage of schools reform. This will focus on improving the lot of teachers by giving them greater rights to discipline unruly pupils.

    [...]

    Gove the historian is taking a pop at Labour. Gove the politician smothers Ed Miliband with praise before taking a pop at the new Labour leader.

    “I like Ed Miliband personally,” he says, recalling frequently shared platforms after their election in 2005. “Ed was a great speaker, fluent, witty, authoritative, intelligent – tripped me up several times with some of my lazy thinking. And always nice, not in the sense of being soft or yielding to a Tory on anything.”

    But Miliband had betrayed a weakness. “Ed seemed to regard being a Tory as some sort of curious choice. It was something you might have inherited from your parents and you probably couldn’t help, or it might be an eccentricity. But you couldn’t actually believe it. The difference therefore between Ed and Tony Blair is that Tony Blair, partly because his dad was a Tory, understood aspiration.”

    Gove, saying he would have voted for David Miliband as the “smartest guy in the room”, laughs at the manner in which the new leader was elected. “Labour has a choice,” he says of what a senior party figure told him. “It can either have a coach who will take it off the floor and get it match-fit again. Or it can have someone who just gives it a nice massage and says ‘There there. Don’t worry’. Quite a lot of Labour MPs and quite a lot of members of the Labour party said they’d like a coach, but the trade union members say ‘No, can we opt for the scented lavender oil and the whale music please.’”

    On the deficit, Gove says Miliband may be making a mistake. “You may have a tactical hanging back, picking off what is seen to be the most unpopular cuts without any rigorous analysis of what should be done,” he says.

    “But it would be fatal, absolutely fatal, for us to underestimate Ed Miliband’s strengths. He is intelligent, he is decent, he is humane. During a time of economic austerity that could be made palatable.”

    Blair again provides a lesson as Gove warns Miliband to be wary of warm praise from critics of the former prime minister. “If they’re happy that tells us something very profound,” he says with a chuckle.’

    Not that Michael Gove is getting off scot-free. Far from it.  For instance, Fiona Miller, partner of Alastair Campbell (?), had this before Ed was crowned King Mili:

    Don’t let Michael Gove off the hook – ‘Labour’s leadership hopefuls are dispiritingly quiet on education policy and Gove’s scrapping of 700 new school buildings’

    So we have the confusing situation where those to the left of Blair, who at first argued against Blair’s package of education reforms as “privatisation”, now support them, without actually admitting the seed-corn was his. At the same time they criticise Gove for junking the school buildings’ expansion for cost reasons. Gove is at least strategically far closer to Blair’s ideas on education reform than many in Labour.

    What was it Blair used to say? What counts is what works.

    RELATED

    1. Take Another Look at Tony Blair – Who Maybe Got It Right -

    ‘He was asked if he had known then what he knows now about weapons of mass destruction, would he still have supported the invasion? Blair said something that is not popular today: that although we did not find WMDs when we went in, that does not mean that there had not been such weapons; they may have been spirited out in Russian convoys, just before we went in. (I believe this too.)  And he noted that had we not gone in, Saddam would have restarted his programs; all the scientists and facilities were in place and just needed a go-ahead. (I heard this from an Iraqi physicist who defected to the US as well.)

    Blair obviously believes that all people deserve to have decent governance.  I would like that too—but I don’t think we few can take on the billions of people living in ignorance who are not ready for participatory governance. But Blair is tireless.’

    _____

    2. A review of A Journey. A step in the right direction, though still wrong about Iraq. Still, at least Blair is not described as a lying, warmongering villain, which is a start. Excerpt:

    ‘And so Blair was obviously a assured and remarkable leader and I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when i say that Britain misses him. Obama, Cameron and Brown all have had the opportunity to correct the west’s actions in the Middle East but none were brave enough to do something about it. It seems to me personally that Blair has been made a scapegoat by numerous deluded people who should probably look somewhere else for one. Tony Blair is essentially a good, honest family man, which is plain to see when reading this book.’

    Back to top

    Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

    _______________

    Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

    Recent comments:

    “Mr. Blair is one of the finest politicians to have had the priviledge of serving the United Kingdom, and Britons are fortunate to have had him as their Prime Minister. Time will show that Mr. Blair’s approach to affairs in the Middle East were and remain correct. From a member of the Commonwealth, thank you, Mr. Blair, for your continued service to legitimate and lasting (and not convenient or politically expedient) freedom.”

    AND – “Tony Blair was the greatest Prime Minister since Winston Churchill and the only regret I have he didn’t get my vote as I live in Canada.”

    AND – ““I am sick and tired of television and radio interviewers asking the same old questions over and over, regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq, presumably they hope Mr Blair will let slip some secret information which they would then use against him. History will show if the decision was the right one, (I believe it was) but people must accept that Tony Blair is a honourable man, and made his decision based on the known facts and not with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.”


    Free Hit Counter

    Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
    Posted in 1. Tony Blair, British Conservative Party, British Politics, British Prime Minister, David Miliband, Foreign Secretary in Gordon Brown's government, from June 2007, Labour Party under Tony Blair's leadership, Legacy of Tony Blair, Major Political Issues, Britain & World | 11 Comments »

    Newer Entries »
    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 1,234 other followers